If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

The fact we got three guys going in the passing game (Rogers, Brazill, TRich) could be a huge building block going forward. Opponents now have to gameplan for that, which should open up Fleener, Hilton, and DHB. Which could take guys out of the box and free up our running game.

Our line wasn't *terrible* either. We lost... but we finally saw signs of life on offense.

We saw signs of life once we got down by three TDs. Color me unimpressed.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

We saw signs of life once we got down by three TDs. Color me unimpressed.

That's what concerns me. We started running an effective Arians-like offense only when we were down multiple scores and playing catch-up. My fear is that when the game starts next week, we will revert back to the same old tired things that haven't worked.

T-Rich can clearly be effective in the passing game when he can catch and run in space. If we don't try to get that going at the beginning of next week's game, I'm going to go insane.

I really hope that Rodgers and Brazil can draw enough focus away from T.Y. It's sad how ineffective T.Y. has been lately.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Guys, see, read and despair. Personally, I have lost every confidence in the refs and how the replays work after reading this.

I wonder if that's really the truth or they decided to spin this a bit?

So I guess he is saying they thought there was contact when he was on the ground, and then the replay clearly showed there wasn't. So then the 'trip' wasn't the contact they thought they saw in the first place so they didn't have to go back that far in the replay ...And that would imply even if they did, that 'contact' was inconclusive and not the contact they were looking for so had no bearing on the play or the review. Although, I suppose if it had been conclusive that he was touched then it would've mattered. But it doesn't sound like they even looked to see if contact is why he fell.

Odd... although I sorta understand it in a complicated kind of way...

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

There's no way to explain that botched replay TD gift, spin or no spin. If the call on the field was down by contact, the contact was obviously by Chapman. So it would have to be definitive that Chapman DID NOT touch him, which there was no way to rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt via the replay. Hence, you could not have overturned the call on the field. Are the refs on the field conceding that they called him down for being touched by nobody and then bouncing into the endzone?

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Yes, Rodgers very encouraging. Also encourage by Brazill's 2 TDs. Bengals gifted one with shoddy tackling, but he's a guy I though showed some potential last year to at lest contribute. But with these two guys we're really talking well beyond this season for anything consistent (if at all), so doesn't make me feel any better about playoffs. Add this trainwreck of a D, and it's painful to think about. Why can't we play with some fire in the first half?

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

This team just isn't very good. They're okay, but I'm thinking it's looking like one and done in the postseason. The defense has suddenly become swiss cheese, and I have no idea why? The offense has been dreadful since Wayne went down. Luck's getting hit on almost every throw, and we have no identity anymore. We aren't a smash mouth team because we can't block, and we can't become pass heavy because our receivers aren't getting open. The team should just sit DHB (who shouldn't be back next year) and try to get Luck to build more rapport with Rogers and Brazill.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Couldn't agree more on banishing DHB to the bench. And also, yes, why is the D suddenly so hideous? I still say if not for Fitzpatrick's turnover-itis, we lose at home vs. TN. What's happened to our DBs? I thought that unit overall looked like it would be solid. Instead it's crumbling week by week. The Landry payday and Davis trade are gradually looking like clunkers.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

There's no way to explain that botched replay TD gift, spin or no spin. If the call on the field was down by contact, the contact was obviously by Chapman.

I think he is trying to say they (or he, Tripplette) initially felt the runner tripped/fell on his own and was touched on the ground (or thought that was what he was told by whoever said he was down by contact). So that was why he was 'down by contact' and not a trip. So then when the replay was looked at he was just trying to see if anyone touched him on the ground. Which they didn't. But he also seems to be saying he never even looked at the start of the trip.

So the next question becomes, did whoever ruled him down by contact actually think he was touched after he fell, or did they think he was tripped in the first place? So did Tripplette go 'under the hood' with the wrong information?

Then, does that matter?

If a player is ruled down by contact, do they define the contact they think they saw before the lead official goes under the hood and is that is all he looks for (a specific contact)? Or does he just look for any contact that would've brought the player down? That's an important distinction. If Tripplette is looking for a specific contact and it's not there, then if he sees a different potential contact but it's not 100%, can he reverse the call on the field? Or does the 'down by contact' initial call now have to apply to any contact, even if that is not the contact another ref told him he thought he had seen?

In this case that seems to be the case because it doesn't appear he even looked to see if there was contact that caused the fall and instead only focused on after the fall. As if there was a specific incident of contact he was looking for. I have little doubt that it would've been a mistake to not look for what caused the trip (which he does seem to be saying he did not look). I'm less sure what that means if the ref that called the contact was focused on a different contact that didn't actually occur, and then this becomes a different contact issue... And it is at least arguable that you can't tell 100% that contact was made but that would mean the play should've stood UNLESS if a ref said he saw one thing and didn't, and all missed the trip entirely, the 'irrefutable evidence' part of this goes out the window. Because then Tripplette would've been looking to prove or disprove a different contact.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this well. But I'm not sure I can explain my questions any better either.

Last edited by Bball; 12-08-2013 at 10:35 PM.

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Ok... A hypothetical.

Let's say there is an onside kick recovered by the kicking team. But then we see a flag on the field. One of the zebras tells the lead official that 88 touched the ball before it traveled 10 yards (which would be illegal touching).

The penalized team challenges the call.

The head official goes under the hood and it's clear 88 did not touch the ball at all. It was close but it's clear he didn't touch it. BUT it appears another player from the kicking team MIGHT have touched it prior to 10 yards.

So is the head official looking to see specifically if only #88 touched the ball? And once he sees 88 didn't touch the ball, then does that change the 'irrefutable evidence' part of the equation? 88 is cleared from contacting the ball prior to 10 yards.... and that was specifically what the ref was told the other zebra had seen. But it's clear by the replay that MAYBE 85 DID touch the ball. But no replay angle is 100% convincing either way. And the ref that threw the flag said it was 88 that touched the ball. So what is the head ref supposed to do in that case? How is that supposed to be handled?

That's about as close to the analogy as I can get to trying to figure out what Tripplette's argument would even be.... He was told a very specific thing and when he went under the hood that specific thing didn't happen. I still think he should've looked at the trip itself but if nobody had said they saw the trip, and the video isn't conclusive, does that now free him to reverse the call on the field? Reason being hypothetically no ref on the field had claimed to see a trip as the 'down by contact' anyway. It was something else they had claimed to see.

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

I'm hoping Mr. Triplett gets to work the Super Bowl and work his magic.

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

That's about as close to the analogy as I can get to trying to figure out what Tripplette's argument would even be.... He was told a very specific thing and when he went under the hood that specific thing didn't happen. I still think he should've looked at the trip itself but if nobody had said they saw the trip, and the video isn't conclusive, does that now free him to reverse the call on the field? Reason being hypothetically no ref on the field had claimed to see a trip as the 'down by contact' anyway. It was something else they had claimed to see.

It defies logic and common sense. If a player is ruled down by contact, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at what made him trip? They just looked at what happened AFTER he tripped, instead of looking for the cause. It's beyond idoitic. And the refs did claim to see him down by contact, because that's what the ruling on the field was.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

It defies logic and common sense. If a player is ruled down by contact, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at what made him trip? They just looked at what happened AFTER he tripped, instead of looking for the cause. It's beyond idoitic. And the refs did claim to see him down by contact, because that's what the ruling on the field was.

That is missing the point of what I'm asking.... Tripplette seems to be saying he was looking for contact after he hit the ground. As if the ref that called down by contact told Tripplette he was touched after he went to the ground. IF that is the contact a ref thought he saw to call 'down by contact' then does that let Tripplette off the hook if the only potential contact he sees is NOT specifically that called contact... and the other potential contact he does see (on video) is inconclusive?

And in this case, Tripplette doesn't even seem to have went back to even look at the entire play. Which I think the NFL is going to have a problem with regardless of anything else. I cannot think of a reason why he wouldn't go back unless the ref who made the call (or didn't make the TD call) gave Tripplette a specific contact he thought he saw and that is what Tripplette was looking for. Now, it could've been a miscommunication between refs at that point too. But regardless, does 'down by contact' open the entire play up to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn it, or does it focus it on a specific point of a play a ref tells the head ref he (thought he) saw contact?

Last edited by Bball; 12-09-2013 at 12:41 PM.

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Thoughts from the game:

1. It was incredibly cold. Mind-numbingly cold. I am forever thankful that we play in a dome, because I just couldn't handle doing that in December. The stadium itself looks nice, and it's got a great view of the river, though I will say that LOS is a much better stadium (it is of course newer)

2. There were TONS of Colts fans at the game, and many of them were around me so that made life more fun. Especially as the stadium would play Jungle Boogie and their annoying Bengals fight song after every touchdown. I feel sad for those fans, they seemed way too happy about it

3. I was pleased by the play of the offensive line yesterday and couldn't quite tell if there were personnel changes. I found out today that Joe Reitz played LG this game, and I didn't realize he was still with the team. Which begs the question, why didn't we ever play him before now? He's way better than most of the other players, sorry all, in the interior line. If only someone could replace Satele, who continued to be ****.

4. After watching our offense in the 2nd half, I continue to fail to understand why we don't play uptempo and 3 wide all the time. Your QB is the best player on the offense, get him in position to do what he does best! It's so infuriating. And lo and behold, Trent plays well and everybody is getting into the game and we score points. What's going to happen next week in the first half? Power run formations...

5. Our defense sucked in the 2nd half.

6. We didn't have a good look at the botched call, but I was beyond pissed. We would have still lost the game, but the momentum completely went in their favor. It would have been a much closer game.

My feet were frozen solid after the game (I literally couldn't feel anything). Hooray for domes.

Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

That is missing the point of what I'm asking.... Tripplette seems to be saying he was looking for contact after he hit the ground. As if the ref that called down by contact told Tripplette he was touched after he went to the ground. IF that is the contact a ref thought he saw to call 'down by contact' then does that let Tripplette off the hook if the only potential contact he sees is NOT specifically that called contact... and the other potential contact he does see (on video) is inconclusive?

And in this case, Tripplette doesn't even seem to have went back to even look at the entire play. Which I think the NFL is going to have a problem with regardless of anything else. I cannot think of a reason why he wouldn't go back unless the ref who made the call (or didn't make the TD call) gave Tripplette a specific contact he thought he saw and that is what Tripplette was looking for. Now, it could've been a miscommunication between refs at that point too. But regardless, does 'down by contact' open the entire play up to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn it, or does it focus it on a specific point of a play a ref tells the head ref he (thought he) saw contact?

This is my guess as to what happened. The ref who made the call must have told Tripplette a specific player touched the RB which caused him to call down by contact. So for the review Triplette would have just looked for that defensive player touching the RB and when he did not see it then in his mind the RB was not down by contact therefor it was a touchdown.

It is the only logical thing I can come up. I just cannot fathom that they called the RB down by contact due to Chapman's trip and then reversing it as it is clear Chapman gets his hand on the RBs foot. The ref that called it must have told Triplette he saw someone else touch him.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:

Re: Week 14: @ Bengals

Really sick of Pep and his horrible play calling.

Trent finally getting pass after pass thrown to him in the last 45 seconds of the game. Trent caught like 5 passes in a row from Luck. Granted, the Bengals weren't playing anymore, but why wait until the last minute of the game, Pep?

I'm done with the loser that is Pep Hamilton. I understand he was brought in to manage a power running offense, and it was working alright, looked like the offense finally was getting all the kinks out during the dominating performance against the 49ers, but we've since lost most of the players that can make us that kind of team.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and realize that we aren't going to be able to play that style if we want to continue to win this year.

First drive of the game, 3rd and 2, and what does Pep call? Well, since we don't really have any WR's that can get any separation, he decides we need to throw a long bomb to the left side of the field, that was broken up and never had a chance. Punt.

Why not a dump pass? A slant? Screen? Maybe even a draw play? No, no let's bomb it all the way down the field, I mean the worst that can happen is it is picked off.

IDK, maybe I'm being too hard on him. I just have never been more frustrated with a game in my life, or at least a while, than yesterday's pathetic excuse for football.

The Tripplett overturn was complete BS, and hell, we probably won't even be told it was a mistake by the NFL. Not that I care. It not like that does anything anyway.

BTW, what's up with our idiot players celebrating when they are getting their asses kicked? Sheppard needs to be benched the rest of the year for that dumb *** taunting play. I understand it isn't a big deal, but it's an easy call for a ref to make. You're flagged for that 10/10 times now and we almost had a stop that drive.

But I guess moron Sheppard don't care, he's still getting paid. Ricky Jean-Francois likes to celebrate the one sack he gets when he's losing by 30+, too. Tired of these idiots embarrassing me. Walden with the helmet-less headbutt, that's just classless.

Blame has to be put on Grigson for signing these bums.

Back to the overturned call, once Tripplett gifted the Bengals a TD, I thought that really killed us. Being down 14-0 with the offense in the state that it is in right now is like being down 28-0.

To our credit we fought, and made it interesting enough for me to not take a nap during the second half. I was happy with Rogers and Brazill, as I think everyone was, which were some of the few positives we can take from the game.

Also, I loved Chuck not going for it with like 6 mins left in the 4th. It was going to be a 4th and 6 or something, and we're down 3 TD's, I think, and yeah we were on our own 30 yard line or so, but screw it, take the chance. Has the defense done anything today? No. Take the chance, stop being scared, we're probably going to lose anyway so go for it.

Instead we punt, and our ****** special teams lets the Bengals return it to our own 35 or so. So basically, instead of at least giving ourselves a chance, we punt it, wave the white flag, and the Bengals almost return it for a TD.

This team is just a mess. But, we're guaranteed a home playoff game during Wild Card Weekend, right? Since Peyton won our division for us by whooping the Titans.

I'm just pissed off is all. I mean the Browns and Bills and tons of teams would love to back into a division championship and be able to host a playoff game. The injuries sadly just really took their toll on us.

Finish the year strong, and we do play the Texans and Jaguars again, right? That could be just what the Doctor ordered for us, get our confidence up again, and maybe with the help of a strong home crowd, maybe just maybe get a home playoff win. Not counting on it, but you never know with the NFL and especially the 2013 Indianapolis "Football" Colts.

PS

What was up with Pat's onside kicks? Seriously. We were better off just handing the Bengals the ball. We got two tries, and the same exact thing happened. Geez.